The question that originally started this branch of discussion, is whether it would make more sense to treat those scenes as Prime or another alternate timeline. As has been established, this has a simple objective answer from a practical standpoint, that the official version is that it's Prime. I can live with that.
But from a subjective, aesthetic standpoint, I think it would make more sense for that to be different timeline. Not that saying it's Prime doesn't make any sense at all, just less.
I don't think it makes sense for it to be a different timeline, because then there's no point in telling the story that way in the first place. Why bother to bring in a future version of Spock if it's not to make a connection with the Trek canon we know? If the story were simply about a timeline or timelines wholly divorced from prior Trek continuity, then including the time-travel element at all would be gratuitous, a needless imposition on an already cluttered story.
I'm in the apparent minority that thinks the original design was perfect right out of the gate, so anytime someone (including Roddenberry) speaks of the show version like it needed improvement, I'm not gonna be able to agree. In fact, my deep appreciation for the original design is why I have such trouble understanding why people constantly treat it like it needs fixing. If it were me, I'd be showing it off every chance I got!
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I agree with you that the original
Enterprise is the best one ever (though the TMP ship gives it a run for its money). But my opinion does not detract from the right of other creators to bring their own creativity to bear and make decisions that differ from mine. And saying that they have that right is NOT saying that their choices are better than other people's choices. That's a totally different conversation.
But I will give you that if we're assuming your model above, I can see the Kelvin fitting into TMP's universe, 30 years previous. The only problem with that, from a canon standpoint, is the original design's appearance on DS9 and ENT.
Creative license. What we see onscreen is an artistic interpretation of a conjectural reality. In TOS, we routinely saw the
Enterprise change from its series configuration in one shot to its pilot configuration in the next (via stock footage). But we were supposed to accept that what we were seeing was not literal and that the ship wasn't actually changing appearance -- that its "true" in-universe appearance was something that the visuals we were shown were only approximating.
Similarly, on DS9, Tora Ziyal was played by three different actresses, and the producers were tempted to keep recasting her every single time she appeared just to screw with us. That doesn't mean she was getting plastic surgery all the time. It means we were being shown variant interpretations of what we were supposed to pretend was a single continuous entity.
I understand that, and don't really have a problem with it. But since consistency with the canonically established Prime timeline was only a secondary concern, why even bother indicating those parts were set in Prime?
That's a really bizarre question. "Secondary concern" does not mean "of no concern at all." It means it's an important goal, just not
as important as the main one. I don't know why you insist on dumbing this down to a black-or-white, all-or-nothing question. They had a job that required a delicate balance: reinventing ST for a new audience without alienating the old audience. Why is it so impossible for you to comprehend that they needed to pursue both goals at once, not make an absolutist choice of one or the other?
You're only looking at one side of it.
That's precisely the reason I'm engaging in this discussion.
What? The reason for engaging in a discussion is to consider both sides. If you're only interested in thinking about one side of it, if you're unwilling to consider any other sides, why am I wasting my time even talking to you?
I guess it just comes down to differing opinions of what constitutes a tribute. I think if they had had one fifteen minute scene that looked a lot more like the show, it would've been a great last hurrah for the traditionalists, but still wouldn't have been dominant or the highest priority.
There's a lot of tribute in the film beyond any level as superficial as the way things look. There are lines of dialogue and bits of characterization that are clear homages. There are moments where the actors channel the original performers uncannily. Try looking beyond the surface, for Pete's sake.
But that's exactly what I'm saying. If keeping things the same wouldn't have altered the quality of the film, then how is changing things a "need?"
That is not what I said. What I said is that they had a need to make the film accessible to a new audience, and that it was their
choice to fulfill that need by making the artistic decisions that they did. The only reason why I can give you is that they are the ones hired to do the job and it was their right to make the decisions their own way whether you approved of them or not. For any further "why" questions, you would have to talk to the filmmakers themselves and ask them point-by-point what their reasons were for the specific aesthetic choices they made. And even if they bothered to answer you, you still wouldn't understand most of their answers, because it's a subjective thing. It's just a fact of life that different creators make different choices, not because they "need" to, but because they have the right to.
I don't see any reason you should be insulted by it; that's not the manner in which it was intended. I'm simply trying to say that, while using your imagination is good, when you're working within an established universe, it doesn't cheapen your own work or originality to copy the elements that others have already brought to that world.
You just don't understand the distinction here. There's a huge difference between employing variations on the same themes and copying the same ideas. I'm not "copying," I'm building on established foundations. "Copying" would mean retelling the same stories, quoting the same lines. That's the equivalent in writing terms of what you're demanding of the art staff, that they just slavishly recreate an earlier creation rather than developing their own variations on an established set of themes. For an artist designing a ship, the ship itself is not just a piece of his or her work, it's the entire work under consideration. What you're saying is that you want the designers of a ship or a bridge or a costume to exactly duplicate what someone else did. The equivalent to that in my field, in writing, would be to plagiarize someone else's entire story. That's not what I do. What I do is build my own creation using shared elements incorporated into a work that's mostly my own. The equivalent of that for a production artist designing a Starfleet vessel would be to use the familiar elements of the shape -- saucer, nacelles, deflector dish, top-mounted bridge -- but create a fresh, distinctive design that incorporated those elements.
I suppose it would make me sound out of touch if I had made any such point, but I don't believe I did so.
You claimed that TOS had depicted a simplistically optimistic future in which humanity never had to go through any hardships to reach its utopian 23rd century. But TOS canonically established that humanity would have to go through at least one more world war that was even worse than WWII. Therefore, you were implicitly saying that a war even worse than WWII wouldn't qualify as going through hardships. I'm not saying you intended to make such a claim, but I'm saying that the claims you have made lead to a fundamental contradiction and that your argument on this point is therefore fatally flawed.
If it works for you, fine, I'm glad you can enjoy it. But don't act like that's the only good way to tell a story.
Arrrgggghhhh!!!! I never said any such goddamn thing, and don't put words in my mouth!! I'm objecting to
your constant whining about how they must be telling a story wrong if they don't tell it the way
you want! Stop accusing me of holding the positions that I'm trying to talk
you out of!!!
I'm done here. I'm not going to debate this with you anymore, since you've pretty much admitted that you're only willing to consider your own side.
Oh, come on. I get that sometimes meanings can be obscured in written word, but I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. I'm only seeing one side of it myself, so I'm having this discussion to open myself up to other people's perspectives. You think I'm doing this just for fun? I would have to be quite insane (or masochistic) to endure all the ridicule and belittling, heaped on anyone who expresses a dislike for the movie, just to assert my supposed rightness about something. 
